The Professions in America a Century Ago: Views of Louis Brandeis

Although this blog was launched because of my concerns about the “future” of the professions, it’s always useful to have a historical perspective. A few weeks ago, I reported my surprise that, five centuries ago, the French essayist Michel de Montaigne characterized the professions of his day in ways that are readily recognizable to our contemporary minds. Now I’d like to consider views and insights put forth a century ago by lawyer Louis Brandeis. These views highlight the ways in which today’s professional landscape resembles and differs from that in the early 20th century.

Louis Dembitz Brandeis is one of the great success stories of American history. The child of immigrants, raised in Louisville, Kentucky, in modest circumstances, Brandeis was an outstanding student at the Harvard Law School—receiving the highest grades ever achieved. He went on to become a highly successful attorney in Boston; and once he had established his own professional standing—often serving as attorney to wealthy businesspersons—he became a strong advocate for the rights of the less wealthy and less powerful. Indeed his decidedly progressive politics were a factor in President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to nominate Brandeis to the Supreme Court in 1916. Partly because of his political leanings and partly because he was the first Jewish person nominated to the Court, Brandeis’ confirmation hearings were unusually contentious. Brandeis went on to serve with distinction on the Court for over twenty years. He has now been honored in a variety of institutions—perhaps notably as the “patron saint” for the University in suburban Boston that bears his name.

As a student of legal history, Brandeis noted that the law held an especially important place in the United States. Not only was the United States heir to the English tradition of a government based on laws and not on men, with a long history of precedents and decisions on which to draw; but because the U.S. did not have a nobility or a rigid class system, and did have a written Constitution, lawyers were already recognized as especially important figures when Alexis de Toqueville visited the U.S. in the early 1830s. As Brandeis put it, “the lawyer has played so large a part in our political life in that his training fits him especially to grapple with the questions which are presented in a democracy.”

Brandeis went on to describe the traits for which lawyers were valued. Their training sharpened their memories and their reasoning faculties. But unlike pure logicians, the reasoning faculties of legal practitioners were always tested by experiences and invariably geared toward practical ends. Lawyers have to operate in real time—they cannot put off a decision until they have obtained “more data” or had more time to contemplate or consult.

Brandeis went on to describe the traits that were especially important—and especially desirable—for lawyers. They should be judicial in attitude, learn to see issues from various sides, and observe human beings even more keenly than they observe objects. Because of these skills and attitudes, they were best equipped to become advisers—and so naturally gravitated to positions of power and influence in their community and in the government. As he told a group of Harvard students in 1905, “It is as a rule …far more important how men (sic) pursue their occupation than what the occupation is.”

Brandeis came of age at the same time that America was becoming an industrial power on the world scene. Corporations and their leaders were assuming increasingly dominant roles in the society. Indeed, as a leading lawyer on the national scene, Brandeis knew many of these leaders personally, and this experience led Brandeis both to think about the risks to the role of the lawyer, and the opportunities that were afforded.

Having drawn on the insight of de Toqueville, an early visitor to America, Brandeis also cited James Bryce, an English observer who came to the United States in the 1880s and wrote an influential book called The American Commonwealth. Tracing de Toqueville’s own trajectory, Bryce noted, “Sixty years ago there were no great fortunes in America, few large portions, no poverty. Now there is some poverty… and a greater number of gigantic fortunes than in any other country of the world.” (p. 745) He went on to sound a warning: “Lawyers are now to a greater extent than formerly business men, as part of the great organized system of industrial and financial enterprise… And they do not seem to be so much of a distinct professional class.” Brandeis underscored this point: “Able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people. We hear too much of the ‘corporation lawyer’; and far too little of the ‘people’s lawyer.'”

Brandeis was clearly concerned by this state of affairs. But he also discerned an opportunity—both for business and for the law. As he described it, professions were characterized by three features: 1) the necessary training is intellectual in character, involving knowledge and learning, not just skill; 2) the work is pursued largely for others and not merely for oneself; and 3) amount of financial return is not the accepted measure of success. Brandeis called for a science of management, where the criterion for success is excellence in performance in the broadest sense—for employees, customers, and the broader surrounding community—not simply the making of money. And to make his case in a concrete manner, Brandeis describes an individual (shoe manufacturer William H. McElwain) and a family of merchants (the Filenes) who have “accepted and applied the principles of industrial democracy and of social justice.” Should these attitudes and behaviors become the norm, then “big business” will mean business
“big not in bulk of power, but great in service and grand in manner.”

Brandeis ended his analysis with a message to aspiring lawyers: “The next generation must witness a continuing and ever increasing contest between those who have and those who have not… Nothing can better fit you for taking part in the solution of these problems than the study and preeminently the practice of law.”

As is often the case when one turns to history, the themes put forth by Brandeis over a century ago have a surprisingly contemporary resonance. Our political system is filled with lawyers, but it is partly a revulsion against lawyers that has led to the election of a self-declared successful businessman. Donald Trump is highly dependent on the lawyers who have represented his personal and financial interests and yet he rarely misses an opportunity to castigate the judicial system. My friend Ben Heineman has written a timely and important book The Inside Counsel Revolution in which he describes the crucial position that is currently occupied by the lead lawyer(s) in global corporations.

Business still aspires to become a recognized profession, while the law struggles to retain its professional status. One cannot help wondering what form these discussions will take 600 years after Montaigne penned his insightful essay and 200 years after Brandeis delivered his trenchant and inspiring talks.

Brandeis References:

–The Opportunity in the Law, Phillip Brooks House, talk to Harvard Ethical Society, May 1905.
-Brown University Commencement Day, published in System, October 1912 .

Michel de Montaigne: An Unexpected Lens on Professions in the 16th Century and in the 21st Century

While I am student of the professions, I have not studied their history systematically. Of course, I realize that there were educators and physicians in the classical Greek era; the Romans created many pivotal political and military roles, as well as highly skilled practitioners in engineering and architecture (and that’s not to mention what has been wryly dubbed “the oldest profession”). Still, in my “mental model” of the professions, I have conceived of them as a modern phenomenon—distinctly different from medieval guilds and trades—closely tied to the creation of formal educational institutions, legal requirements, ethical codes, and the possibility of losing one’s license.

Stimulated by Sara Bakewell’s remarkable book How to Live: Or a Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer, I have been reading through an old translation of the essays of Michel de Montaigne. Montaigne lived in France in the 16th century (1533-1592)—a time so different from ours. Life was short and dangerous, most children did not survive the first days or years of life, war was constant, and cruelty towards enemies was accepted and even encouraged. Royalty had tremendous power but was also vulnerable to upheavals, typically sudden and violent; members of the upper social classes, particularly men, were accustomed to being protected and served around the clock by members of the lower classes. Over the centuries, Montaigne has been widely read and widely cherished (though for two centuries, he was on the Catholic Church index of forbidden books). He wrote about his own life with unprecedented directness, candor and wit. And he did so in scores of short pieces in which he poured out his thoughts in a stream-of-consciousness manner. For that reason, he is considered to have invented the literary form called the essay.

While I was reading the essays and (to be frank) daydreaming, I was quite surprised—and awakened!—to encounter the following passage:

“In reading histories, which is everybody’s subject, I use(d) to consider what kind of men are the authors; if they be persons that profess (NOTE THE WORD!) nothing but mere letters, I, in and from them, principally observe and learn style and language; if physicians, I then rather incline to credit what they report of the temperature of the air, of the health and complexions of princes, of wounds and diseases; if lawyers, we are from them to take notice of the controversies of right and wrong, the establishment of laws and civil government, and the like; if divines, the affairs of the Church, ecclesiastical censures, marriages and dispensations; if courtiers, manners and ceremonies; if soldiers, the things that properly belong to their trade, and principally, the accounts of the actions and enterprises wherein they were personally engaged; if ambassadors, we are to observe negotiations, intelligences, and practices, and the manner how they are to be carried on” (p. 13-14, Essays of Montaigne, Xist Classics).

The wording of the era may seem exotic, but the list of the professions, and what Montaigne expected to obtain from their respective practitioners, is quite familiar—lawyers dealing with controversies in the law, physicians focused on wounds, diseases, and general health. In a subsequent moment of day dreaming, my thoughts leapt to a ceremony—dating back almost to Montaigne’s time—that I witness each year. I refer to the Commencement (graduation) ceremonies held in late spring in Harvard Yard. The President, and other leaders of the University, confer degrees on individuals from a dozen different faculties, and in each case, note the privileges and obligations attendant to those who will practice those respective professions. And the list is quite like Montaigne’s—scholars (Arts and Sciences); physicians (Medical School); lawyers (Law School); religious leaders (Divinity School); ambassadors (School of Government).

Taking off from Montaigne’s musings, if we were to undertake a schematic analysis of the sweep of the professions over five centuries, what might some of the similarities and differences be? Here’s my stab:

Similarities:

-Professions address fundamental human needs—tending to sickness, resolving disputes, educating the young, protecting citizens from harm.

-Often, professions tackle complex issues that are not readily resolved.

-Professions take advantage of the latest knowledge and lore; sometimes this is kept under wraps (privileged knowledge).

-Certain individuals are recognized as practitioners, and perhaps masters of that lore; others are made fun of (e.g. in the plays of Molière or Shakespeare—“Let’s kill all the lawyers” [Henry VI, Part 2]).

-Apprentices seek to identity and learn from masters of the specified professions.

Differences:

-New professions arise, others fade away. Barbers are no longer seen as professionals; journalists are aspiring professionals; going forward, those who design the “rules of the internet” are likely to be considered professionals.

-There are now formal educational institutions and requirements. In the United States, following the publication and dissemination of the Flexner Report (1910), fly-by-night medical training institutions were phased out, and a far more rigorous set of criteria applied to institutions that could award medical degrees (such highly regulated institutions are less the rule in some other countries, and that’s why students who are not admitted to medical school in the U.S. often acquire degrees in other nations). Relatedly, medical curricula are now scrutinized (for example, by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

-Numerous ethical codes that are published; to take one profession, physicians are expected to adhere to them and, at least in principle, one can lose one’s medical license (even if in practice, physicians are rarely expelled from the profession unless they are convicted of crimes).

Taking a perspective that stretches back to Montaigne’s time, while also looking ahead, what trends might we expect?

In the traditional professions (e.g. law, medicine, engineering, university teaching), there will be continuing efforts to establish and monitor training and to maintain and even increase the status of these professions. I don’t think that these efforts will be successful. So many occupations strive to have the status of professions; various educational interventions, many disreputable, are once again springing up. Expertise is not held in high regard (unless your own health or well-being is at stake). Unless the traditional professions can demonstrate unequivocally that their graduates can perform in a way that others do not, it’ll be difficult to maintain the hallowed status of, say, a degree from a flagship law school.

Also, there will continue to be a proliferation of paraprofessionals, who carry out more specific tasks, and these often well-trained experts are likely to blur further the line between the traditional professional and her close colleagues. Finally, as more tasks traditionally associated with the professions are carried out by computational algorithms and devices, the unique contribution of “the professional” will be more difficult to discern.

As readers of this blog will know, I am not sanguine about these trends—I continue to hope that the special status of the professional will endure. If it is to endure, I think it will have less to do with technical knowledge and years of schooling of the professional. Rather the survival of “the professional” will come to be associated with the way she comports herself—in terms of relations to colleagues and clients, ability to communicate effectively, monitoring of relevant trends (positive and troubling) in the broader society, and, most important, being able to give clear, objective, and disinterested advice, knowledgeable syntheses of what is known and what is unclear, and wise recommendations within her sphere of competence.

Interestingly, these desirable human traits go way back in history—even in pre-history. We can see them in Plato’s descriptions of wise rulers and in the Biblical portrayal of judges. By implication, we can also see them in Restoration comedies—when professionals are ridiculed, it is because they do not live up to the expectation of excellence that we hope for. And they are also discernable, in a positive sense, in Montaigne’s writings.

In the best of both worlds, we will continue to have individuals who possess high levels of knowledge as well as acute judgment and shafts of wisdom, and who merit the comment, “She is a true professional.”

Care (“meléte”) and Virtue (“areté”): A “Melarete” Project for Children in Italy

By Luigina Mortari

Luigina Mortari is the Scientific Director of the Center of Educational and Didactic Research at the University of Verona in Italy. In the post below, she shares details of a curriculum she and her colleagues developed that emphasizes care and virtue.

---

Educating to care and educating to virtue—these are the fundamental ideas behind of the Melarete project, a project developed by my colleagues and I in order to encourage virtues in young people, particularly the ethic of care. The word Melarete may sound strange, but if we examine its etymological foundation, we discover its meaning: the union of the Greek terms meléte (care) and areté (virtue).

The main underpinnings of the project are: 1) the ethics of care (Held, 2006; Mortari, 2015; Noddings, 1984, 1992), according to which acting “good” means caring for others; and 2) Aristotelian ethics, according to which it is important to practice virtues to learn them. Melarete is an educative and research-based curriculum designed for primary-school children, based on the epistemological approach of “naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), which asserts that phenomena must be investigated in the context in which they appear. Our context is the school, where children spend a great deal of time, build significant relationships, and are involved in learning experiences.

Our project is further defined as follows:

• “educative research” (Mortari, 2009), because it offers children educative experiences as the object of the research;

• “transformative research” (Mortari, 2007, 2009), because it aims to improve the quality of the context in which it is conducted;

• “research for children” (Mortari, 2009), and not merely “research with children,” because it aims to involve children in positive and meaningful experiences in order to facilitate their flourishing.

The goal of Melarete is to encourage children to reflect on their personal experiences to explore the essential meaning of important ethical concepts, such as good, care, virtue, courage, generosity, respect, and justice. The heuristic goal is to investigate how children’s thinking develops in relation to ethical concepts and potentialities. Adopting a naturalistic epistemology requires searching for research instruments that are as similar as possible to the objects and activities used in the school. Our instruments are therefore similar to those that teachers use for everyday class work.

Currently, this curriculum is being implemented in schools in two cities in Italy. Six primary school fourth-grade classes are participating. Below, we share some examples of our activities, which include stories, games, and vignettes intended to spark conversation and reflection among the students about the general concepts of good, care, and virtue, and on the virtues of courage, generosity, respect, and justice.

• Reading a story to focus attention on acting with care in order to search for what is good; after the reading, the children are asked if they liked the story and why, and a discussion about the meanings of “good” and “care” occurs.

• Two introductory activities: a game called “The Basket of Virtues” which helps the children define the specific virtues of courage, generosity, respect, and justice; and a story called “The Story of Alcibiades,” designed to motivate the children to reflect on virtues and how they are learned.

• Concluding activities, which are designed to determine if and how the children’s thinking has developed due to the project.

Activity Spotlight: The “Diary of Virtues” and “Tree of Virtues”

One activity, “Diary of Virtues,” is presented after the introduction of these concepts and is carried out by children until the end of the educative path. The children are invited to keep a diary at least once a week in which they narrate a virtuous action they have done or that they have seen other people do. If the children have no virtuous actions to narrate, they can freely write as they please. The topics considered most suitable for the diary are those on which Melarete focuses (i.e. courage, generosity, respect, and justice).

Furthermore, whenever the children do a virtuous action, they attach a leaf to their “Tree of Virtues,” a diagram drawn at the beginning of their diary. The leaves have different colors based on the different virtues they represent (i.e. red for generosity, yellow for courage, blue for respect, and purple for justice).

Whenever the children narrate a virtuous action in their diary and attach the leaf of the relative virtue to the tree in their diary, they also attach another leaf, identical to the first one, to the “Tree of the Trees” that is in the classroom for public display.

I would like to conclude by presenting some examples written by children in their diaries, powerful illustrations of children learning about the meaning of doing “good” in the world:

• “Yesterday, I saw a courageous person who went into the street to save three doggies.” (courage)

• “When I was little, one day I was in the mountains and went for a walk. We had to go in a wood, but I didn’t want to. Nevertheless, I then took courage and went in the wood.” (courage)

• “When I was little, I was afraid of the dark, and then I faced it.” (courage)

• “I painted the yellow leaf because I told the truth to my mom.” (courage)

• “The virtue about which I want to tell you is generosity. Today I carried out an act of generosity when I gave a balloon to a child, and I felt good.” (generosity)

• “Yesterday my brother asked me if I could lend my pencil to him, and I lent him it.” (generosity)

• “My brother did an act of generosity: he gave a biscuit to his cousin because he was hungry.” (generosity)

• “I saw a gentlemen giving a pizza to a poor person.” (generosity)

• “When my brother threw paper on the ground, I picked up it and threw it into the garbage pail.” (respect)

• “I started to say please and thanks and to ask for permission before doing something.” (respect)

• “I saw a child in a park who was having a snack with two other friends. This child was eating all of it, but his friend stopped him, and they divided the snack.” (justice)

• “Yesterday, my brother and I divided our TV time.” (justice)

References

Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care. Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.
Mortari, L. (2007). Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia. Prospettive epistemologiche. Roma: Carocci.
Mortari, L. (ed.) (2009). La ricerca per i bambini. Milano: Mondadori.
Mortari, L. (2015). Filosofia della cura. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in School. An Alternative Approach to Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Artificial Intelligence and the Professions

I recently came across a welcome bit of good news (which many of us crave these days!). Through a vehicle intriguingly titled the “Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Fund,” several philanthropies are providing generous support for an important and challenging undertaking: an investigation of the ethical and moral considerations of advances in AI. The beneficiaries are two highly appropriate and complementary university centers: the Media Lab at the Massachusetts of Institute of Technology and the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

This philanthropic support could not be more timely. After a number of false (or overly-hyped) starts in the last half-century, the field of artificial intelligence is coming of age. As the size of computational devices gets ever smaller, the question-answering and problem-solving capacities of our technologies increase steadily. We can still argue about whether “artificial intelligence” is truly intelligent—that is, intelligent in the way that we humans think we are intelligent; and it is clear that much of artificial intelligence still depends on “brute force” processing of tons of information rather than the kinds of elegant heuristics that we human beings allegedly employ.

Until recently, I had thought that one arena of human life was unlikely to be affected by artificial intelligence—the practice of the learned professions. Of course, I knew that almost all workers make use of technological aids, and, as a (self-proclaimed) professional, I have for decades used computer programs that help me to array and analyze data, write and edit easily, and—indeed (perhaps especially)—organize my life. But I thought of these as mere adjuncts to my “real” work of thinking, advising, planning, executing, and professing.

Thanks to recent attention in the press—and Richard and Daniel Susskind’s book of The Future of the Professions—I now realize that I was naïve. The subtitle of the Susskinds’ book is telling: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Large parts of professions are now carried out far more rapidly—and in many cases, more accurately—by AI programs and devices than by even the most skilled and speediest human beings. It’s become an open question whether, and to what extent, we will need flesh and blood accountants to handle and authenticate our books; live physicians to commission and interpret our MRIs; animated teachers who stand and deliver in front of us rather than well-designed lessons online.

But for the most part, discussions of these trends have ignored or minimized what is at the core, the proverbial “elephant in the room”: the responsibility of professionals to make complex judgments, and notably ethical ones, under conditions of uncertainty. The auditor has to decide which items to include or exclude, how to categorize them, what recommendations to give to the client, when to report questionable practices, to whom, and in what format. The medical practitioner has to decide which tests to commission, which findings to emphasize, and how to explain the possible courses of a disease process to patients and families who differ widely in background, knowledge, and curiosity. The teacher has to decide which topics are most important, what to emphasize (or minimize) in the current context (including time constraints, snow days, and epochal world events), which kinds of feedback are useful to specific students in specific contexts, and which kinds are better kept under wraps for now.

“To be sure,” you might respond. But these kinds of knowledge and “moves” can and are being built into AI. We can and should consider varying contexts; we can have different responses for different clients, even for the same clients on different days or under different circumstances; we can tweak programs based on successes and failures according to specified standards; and, anyway, we cannot be confident that human practitioners—even ones with the best of motives—necessarily handle such challenges very well.

Since I am (hopefully) less naïve than at earlier times, I won’t attempt to bat down or ignore these rejoinders. But I raise the following considerations:

1. Over the decades, professionals have developed understandings of what is proper professional behavior and what is not. To be sure, sometimes these consensus judgments are honored as much in the breach as in the observance; but at least they are standards, typically explicit ones. (One journalism ethical code—that of The New York Times—runs for over fifty pages.) Any artificial intelligence program that takes on professional (as opposed to purely technical) competence needs to be explicit about the ethical assumptions built into it. Such discussions have commenced—for example, with reference to the norms governing driverless automobiles that get into traffic jams or accidents.

2. It is illusory to think that there will be one best approach to any professional challenge—be it how to audit accounts, interpret radiological information, or fashion a lesson. Indeed, different approaches will have different ethical orientations—implicit or explicit. Far better that the assumptions be made explicit and that they have to contend with one another publicly on the ethical playing field… as happens now in discussions among philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists.

3. Among competing artificial intelligence approaches to professional quandaries, how do we decide which to employ? We could create AI “meta-programs” that make these decisions—but for now, I’d rather let human professionals make these discernments. As the Romans famously queried “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” (“Who guards the guardians?”)

4. What happens if, for some reason, AI breaks down (for example, if the “hackers of ethics” have their day)? (More than a few gifted hackers pass through the portals of the two Cambridge institutions that have been generously funded.) In such post-diluvium “after the flood” cases, we will desperately need well-educated human beings who themselves have come to embody professional expertise and judgment.

5. A personal point: As I write these lines, I am dealing with a medical situation that will take months to resolve. I am fortunate—indeed, more than fortunate—to have a skilled medical team that is helping me to deal with these challenges. No doubt each member makes use of all of the “computational intelligence” at his or her disposal. But I also have conversations—in person, on the telephone, or on line—with these physicians frequently (in one case, on a daily basis). These personal interactions with live, empathic human beings have enormous positive impact on my well-being. When I have recovered, I expect to write about the sense of professional calling which still exists, at least in the prototypical profession of medicine.

6. Maybe my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be equally satisfied having “conversations” with AI programs, although I can’t conceive of a situation where I would be. And this is in large part because my physicians are human beings. In some ways, as a fellow human being, I know where they are “coming from”—and in some ways, they also know where I am “coming from”; where I am going; and how the many pieces fit (or don’t) fit together. As fellow human beings, we share both an evolutionary background and a common fate.

And so, as the researchers and practitioners commence their important work on the ethics of AI, I hope that they will keep in mind those capacities and potentials that represent the “better angels” of human nature—those civilized and professional virtues and values that took centuries to develop but can so easily be scuttled and forgotten.

An Action Call: “I Am A Citizen” Project

By Arina Bokas

Arina Bokas is an author, independent educational consultant, and faculty member in the department of English at Mott Community College, Michigan. She is also the editor of Kids’ Standard Magazine.

---

Is civic education on the decline in America? Like many educators, the most recent presidential election made me rethink my own role in preparing students to become engaged citizens and informed participants in the American political process. In response to recent events, I developed a research project for my college students called “I Am A Citizen,” first completed by my freshmen composition class last semester.

Located in Flint, Michigan, Mott Community College, where I teach, has a diverse student body. Many inner city students, predominantly African-American, receive financial aid that allows them to attend. The college also draws many students from Flint’s suburbs that, up until a few decades ago, were home to many skilled, well-paid automotive workers. These predominantly white students come from working class families, often making just above the income line that would qualify them for financial assistance. Many students from both groups work in order to afford college. I could safely say that my composition class was evenly divided in their political preferences, with about a quarter of students being removed from politics altogether.

The Ground Rule: Ideas, Not People

From the very start, I made it clear that regardless of their political considerations, students were to treat each other with respect. Most importantly, we were to discuss ideas, and never individuals. This rule applied to the presidential candidates, their supporters, and students themselves. This was one important shift in thought that students had to embrace.

Set-Up and Expectations

Students were split in groups of five, each group working within one theme or general area of interest. When creating groups, I purposefully combined students from various social-economic and racial backgrounds to ensure a diversity of views. Individually, each student was to select a specific question that he or she would investigate within the chosen area.

To make sure that students were well positioned to conduct a productive investigation, I asked them to submit a research proposal containing their question, criteria, and hypothesis prior to collecting any data.

Students worked within their groups to develop tools for gathering information, most often surveys, and were each responsible for collecting a specific demographic sample. After the results from all members were compiled, groups analyzed the data to see whether responses differed based on respondents’ age, gender, social-economic class, or political affiliation, information that was analyzed in individually written papers.

The final outcome of this project was a research portfolio that included a research proposal, individual survey results, bibliography, first draft with peer edits, final draft, and a reflection exercise.

The Project: Building Skills and Dispositions

As my students gathered early in the morning on November 9, 2016, our nation had just awakened the results of the election. Amidst the confusion, joy, fear, and anger sweeping our country, my 18-year-old first-time voters talked quietly and respectfully as they were discussing and selecting areas for their projects.

The image of the President of the United States, the system of the U.S. electoral process, and the particular election of 2016 were three dominant themes. To help students formulate individual questions, I led the class through a “Chalk Talk” thinking routine in which groups moved from one station to another to recording their thoughts about each group’s proposed topic and build on one another’s reflections. By the end of the class period, many students had a clear idea of what exactly they were eager to research.

Examples of research questions included:

• Are values of truth and ethics in the President of the United States important to our society

• Has our perception of personal values in the President of the United Stated changed over time?

• Does the electoral process currently in place in the United States allow the best candidates to advance?

• Does the two-party system serve America well?

The verbalization of questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research afforded students an opportunity to evaluate their own perspectives and the evolution of their views as their research progressed. Students considered throughout the project whether their research supported their preliminary view or made them reconsider it, learning to postpone judgment and objectively evaluate evidence.

Because the students were also required to examine original documents, rather than rely on the interpretation of others, and to develop their very own data collection tools, this project fostered student agency and perspective taking.

Outcomes and Observations

From the time I introduced the project to the students until the day they presented their results, we had six weeks of bi-weekly class meetings, a relatively short amount of time to tackle broad ideas. Through the presentations, project reflections, and more informal conversations, I was able to conclude that the value of this project was found in three areas vital to responsible citizenship.

1. Understanding of the political arena.

Before completing this project, many students believed that they had sufficient knowledge of political processes. Very soon, however, it became clear that there was a substantial deficit in their knowledge and comprehension. One student wrote in her reflection, “I learned that even with all of the technology we have, we don’t know much about the elections or the candidates. Maybe this is because of misinformation that comes with certain media outlets, or maybe this is because we sometimes just don’t care to take time to really understand something.“ (Jazmin H.)

For many students, the surveys and analyses of secondary sources led to unexpected conclusions. For example, most respondents over the age of 35 across various demographics didn’t consider truth and ethics to be important in the political arena. They based their trust in the President not on telling public truths but rather on their perception of whether or not the President was true to his/her word. On the other hand, public truth was an important factor for younger voters.

Students also concluded that the two-party system was limiting the presidential pool inside and outside the parties. Most respondents knew nearly nothing about third party candidates or even the third parties themselves.

2. Understanding of the role of a citizen.

One student noted the effect of this project on his sense of responsibility as a citizen: “This project gave me a new perspective on the U.S. government. Before this, I always brushed off our American politics as a sort of nuisance. Reading the Constitution and trying to understand it for the first time, learning about actions of the past Presidents and their effects on my life today, made me take a critical look at myself as a citizen.” (Patrick S.)

The surveys data demonstrated a substantial shift between generations in how people perceive their civic responsibility. Older voters had a higher percentage of civic participation and desire to stay informed than did their younger counterparts. Older people were also more likely to believe that their voices matter.

One student reflected, “I didn’t vote in this election or the last one, even though I was eligible. I honestly didn’t realize how much the presidential elections affect us, American citizens, and the rest of the world. This project has changed my perspective. I will be more involved in the future, following up on the issues and partaking in the voting process.” (Katherine H.)

3. Desire to question, seek various perspectives, verify, and postpone conclusions.

Compiling and interpreting data from various demographic samples and working in mixed groups allowed students to interact with perspectives of those with whom they disagreed. Throughout the process, students strove to remain objective as they read, edited, and listened to presentations of evidence and conclusions of others.

A number of students observed that since the founding of the country, ethical standards for the President had changed. Many of the founding fathers weren’t concerned about human rights issues as we understand them today, and different priorities were at the fore. Students commented that they realized that almost any issue involved a number of interrelated and complex factors. Differences of opinion were often a result of which factors individuals considered more relevant and important to their lives.

“I feel I am more open minded,” reported one student. “In the future, I would like to stay neutral until I fully understand and know both sides of the argument. Just because I know my life doesn’t mean I know the needs of my neighbor.” (April L.)

Concluding Thought

I believe that nearly every non-technical subject presents an opportunity for a project that enhances student civic knowledge or understanding of civic engagement. No matter how brief the exposure might be, it matters. Little by little, we all can make a change that will have a lasting effect on the future of our nation.